What Is Team Reasoning?

Here’s a preview. I will explain it later.

‘somebody team reasons if she works out the best possible feasible combination of actions for all the members of her team, then does her part in it.’

(Bacharach, 2006, p. 121)

--------

\subsection{slide-18}

COmpare Sugden

‘it seems obvious that ‘high’ is the rational choice [...]. Apparently, something is missing from the standard theory of rational choice. But what?’

(Sugden, 2000, p. 182)

--------

\subsection{slide-19}

To repeat ...

‘somebody team reasons if she works out the best possible feasible combination of actions for all the members of her team, then does her part in it.’

(Bacharach, 2006, p. 121)

--------

\subsection{slide-20}

We need some kind of identification

--------

\subsection{slide-21}

‘[A] team exists to the extent that its members take themselves to be members of it.

(Sugden, 2000)

--------

\subsection{slide-22}

[T]o take oneself to be a member of a team is to engage in such reasoning oneself, while holding certain beliefs about the use of such reasoning by others’

(Sugden, 2000)

--------

\subsection{slide-23}

What counts as best possible?

--------

\subsection{slide-25}

(Sugden, 2000)

--------

\subsection{slide-27}

Preferences of teams just like preferences of the individuals. (Team really is considered as an aggregate agent.)

--------

\subsection{slide-32}

You do not always team reason even with members of your team

--------

\subsection{slide-33}

[mention autonomy now but not aggregate agents yet!] It is important to recognise that we have autonomous aggregate subjects because ...

‘There is ... nothing inherently inconsistent in the possibility that every member of the group has an individual preference for y over x (say, each prefers wine bars to pubs) while the group acts on an objective that ranks x above y.’

(Sugden, 2000)

--------

\subsection{slide-34}

‘somebody team reasons if she works out the best possible feasible combination of actions for all the members of her team, then does her part in it.’

(Bacharach, 2006, p. 121)

We need some kind of identification

‘[A] team exists to the extent that its members take themselves to be members of it.

(Sugden, 2000)

[T]o take oneself to be a member of a team is to engage in such reasoning oneself, while holding certain beliefs about the use of such reasoning by others’

(Sugden, 2000)

I asked, What counts as best possible? Now we have answered that question (in best posible -> max expected utility relative to team preferences)

--------

\subsection{slide-36}

q1 Why does hi seem obvious?

q2 Why do pepole almost always choose hi?

--------

\subsection{slide-37}

So how is this solved by team reasoning? (Later: if we agree with Sugden about ‘autonomy’, then maybe it isn’t.)

--------

\subsection{slide-42}

What does team reasoning predict?

‘somebody team reasons if she works out the best possible feasible combination of actions for all the members of her team, then does her part in it.’

(Bacharach, 2006, p. 121)

‘[A] team exists to the extent that its members take themselves to be members of it.

(Sugden, 2000)

[T]o take oneself to be a member of a team is to engage in such reasoning oneself, while holding certain beliefs about the use of such reasoning by others’

(Sugden, 2000)

(Bacharach, 2006, p. 121)

‘[A] team exists to the extent that its members take themselves to be members of it.

(Sugden, 2000)

[T]o take oneself to be a member of a team is to engage in such reasoning oneself, while holding certain beliefs about the use of such reasoning by others’

(Sugden, 2000)

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

		Player X
		high	low
Player Y	high	2 2	0 0
	low	0 0	1 1

Game theory:
If X expects Y to choose high, X should choose high
If X expects Y to choose low, X should choose low
What X expects depends on what Y expects X to do ...
... -> X has no reason to prefer high over low.

‘It seems quite obvious that you should choose [high]. 
However, the question is why it seems obvious, 
and [...] why people almost always do choose [high].
(Bacharach, 2006, p. 35)
[...] The answer I shall offer has far-reaching implications for 
[...] our conception of ourselves 
as social beings.’
COmpare Sugden
‘it seems obvious that ‘high’ is the rational choice [...]. 
Apparently, something is missing from the standard theory of rational choice. 
But what?’
(Sugden, 2000, p. 182)

To repeat ...
‘somebody team reasons if she works out the best possible feasible combination of actions for all the members of her team, then does her part in it.’
(Bacharach, 2006, p. 121)
Bacharach (2006, p. 121)
We need some kind of identification
‘[A] team exists to the extent that its members take themselves to be members of it.
(Sugden, 2000)
[T]o take oneself to be a member of a team is to engage in such reasoning oneself, 
while holding certain beliefs about the use of such reasoning by others’
(Sugden, 2000)
Sugden (2000)
What counts as best possible?

‘In the standard theory, the individual appraises alternative actions by her in relation to some objective (her preferences), given her beliefs about the actions that other individuals will choose. 
An individual who engages in team-directed reasoning appraises alternative arrays of actions by members of the team in relation to some objective (team-directed preferences).’
(Sugden, 2000)
Preferences of teams just like preferences of the individuals.
(Team really is considered as an aggregate agent.)
‘At the level of the team, team preference is a ranking of outcomes which is revealed in the team's decisions.’
(Sugden, 2000)

		Player X
		high	low
Player Y	high	2 2	0 0
	low	0 0	1 1

What does team reasoning predict?

You do not always team reason even with members of your team

[mention autonomy now but not aggregate agents yet!] It is important to recognise that we have autonomous aggregate subjects because ...

consequence: autonomy

(Sugden, 2000)

Sugden (2000)

‘somebody team reasons if she works out the best possible feasible combination of actions for all the members of her team, then does her part in it.’

(Bacharach, 2006, p. 121)

Bacharach (2006, p. 121)

We need some kind of identification

‘[A] team exists to the extent that its members take themselves to be members of it.
(Sugden, 2000)
[T]o take oneself to be a member of a team is to engage in such reasoning oneself, 
while holding certain beliefs about the use of such reasoning by others’
(Sugden, 2000)
Sugden (2000)

I asked, What counts as best possible? Now we have answered that question (in best posible -> max expected utility relative to team preferences)

So how is this solved by team reasoning? (Later: if we agree with Sugden about ‘autonomy’, then maybe it isn’t.)

		Player X
		high	low
Player Y	high	2 2	0 0
	low	0 0	1 1

		Prisoner X
		resist	confess
Prisoner 59640	resist	3 3	0 4
	confess	4 0	1 1

Keyboard Shortcuts?f

Keyboard Shortcuts`?f`